Enhanced Communication for MT-2 Submittals as Part of the FEMA Letters of Map Revision Review Partners Program

NOTE: The lessons learned from this best practice have been incorporated into the MT-2 Procedures Manual for Cooperating Technical Partners/contractors supporting MT-2 processing. This best practice is for informational purposes only. CTPs in the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) Review Partners Program should continue to refer to the MT-2 Procedures Manual regarding case processing.


At any time, multiple mapping studies that affect a single community may take place. This includes smaller Physical Map Revisions (PMRs) and larger countywide Risk Mapping, Assessment and Planning (Risk MAP) studies. It can take years to identify or update flood hazard data. Development activities and day-to-day floodplain management tasks still take place throughout the life of a PMR or Risk MAP study.

Entities performing an MT-2 that will result in a physical revision to effective flood hazard information may not know of ongoing studies that could change the outcome of their request. They also may not know of FEMA’s MT-2 process and submittal requirements. Awareness of these processes and data availability is critical to ensuring the most accurate information is available for floodplain management.


The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and the Mile High Flood District (MHFD) both take part in the Cooperating Technical Partner (CTP) LOMR Review Partners Program.

In their jurisdictions, they now hold pre-submittal meetings to answer questions about the MT-2 process. These meetings give them a chance to teach applicants about FEMA requirements, higher state and/or local standards and factors that may impact their MT-2. These meetings help people learn how to work through complex or unusual conditions. Through a collaborative process, the CTPs work with FEMA, applicants and communities to decide the paths forward for such projects.


Potential MT-2 applicants learn more about the map revision process, FEMA’s submittal requirements, and any other factors that relate to their project. They also consider and account for ongoing mapping studies and effective or ongoing Letters of Map Change within their project footprint.

This makes for more complete MT-2 submittals. It raises awareness for coordination with other map revision processes. It also leads to more effective processing and more useful products. In turn, local agencies are informed and involved in the early stages of the MT-2 process. This lets them work with CTPs and mapping partners to add MT‑2s into final study products.

Such work gives communities maps that better show their actual flood risk. Mapping partners learn about future, ongoing, and completed MT-2s. They can predict and include effects of these projects at various phases of the study (the earlier the better). Finally, they can efficiently give communities new and accurate flood hazard data.


LOMR applicants and mapping partners that perform larger mapping efforts are at less risk of facing costly delays. The affected parties now know more in the early stages. This saves costs for every entity affected by a LOMR submittal. Local agencies know more about ongoing mapping efforts within their jurisdictions. LOMR applicants receive local knowledge and experience.

Lessons Learned

When there is confusion or a large data gap in the process, it is best to contact the applicant on the phone to help them learn what is required. These phone calls can also help them decide if it is best to suspend the process. Some MT-2s that need reviews are quite large and could qualify as a Physical Map Revision.

It is important to set aside enough time and cost to fully review larger submittals. Overall, taking part in the LOMR Review Partners Program and holding pre-submittal meetings has led to better products, awareness, and coordination for all parties.


Last updated